|
Atheism (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| u4ea:[soulstar] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
[B]
"Only when one completely removes the possibility of a life after death, can one be truly happy living in this life." |
That's a side view without hindsight. I see the possibility and the attainment of both: living and the hereafter. One way of happy living is to come face to face with death and coming back (NDE). Another way is how much value a person places on such subjects that pure atheists wouldn't dare venture into: exploration of OBE; Kundalini; Dreams; Astral planes; Remote Viewing; past life regression. The ability to self-empower ourselves and dismantle one's own paradigms enriches and nurtures our lives and our curiosity. That is what living our potential is when we explore the possiblities.
| quote: | | So atheism thus becomes the more optimistic "belief system" (if you want to call it that, but as I said before it is actually the "rejection" of a belief system) of the two stances. It makes this life meaningful, it adopts a helthy stance towards the present. Christianity is a rejection of humanity, it makes the man sick so that it may offer him hope of infinity. Atheism needs no such pretense to make life meaningful. |
Belief System. When an atheist can reach Satori, he/she won't have a belief system, rather it's a self-realization structure of a child. Though, the process is not instantenous, it's a progressive awakening..
Present. Any mystical systems adopts the present. Any diversifications of such adopt the present.
Rejection. No, it just takes moral values and ethics to higher grounds than necessary, where the sacredness seems exclusive to its own oracle.
Pretense. Yes, it does, ignorance and inflexibility. I'll dare say secular christian god-based systems are guilty of such too.. the sects in the buddhist tradition are also quilty of such pretenses..
Keep The Peace |
|
|
| Brownitus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Brownitus:
Yep, okay, I think we're approaching the same subject but from a different angle. I'm talking about Christianity as a whole |
As am I. The Christian "whole" is comprised of the Christian populace. Speaking of the vast amount of individuals makes it fair to assume I'm denoting the entirety of the faith.
| quote: | | Having said that, I'm still not sure I agree with your views on the racist undertones in the bible. The pope instigating the genocide you talk about, like I said before, was a racist first and foremost, and would have looked for any justification - regardless of how fragile - for his views within the pages of the Bible. Sure, the "white=good, black=evil" sentiments may have been grounded in a racist motivation, but it's far more likely that this moral dichotemy of black and white is grounded in much more simple and less sinester imagery. |
No, man. You're interpreting me wrong-- I'm not speaking of any "racist undertones in the bible," but rather of the racist undertones of the faith itself. I don't want to get flamed so I'll cite the most basic examples that anyone who knows how to spell Christianity should know: the Jews and the crucifixion of Jesus due to political persecution. You appear a smart enough person so I'm leaning towards not having to elaborate on those modules.
| quote: | | Light, for many religions - not just Christianity - is seen as a pure, white and brilliant element. It is this purity that has led god to be painted as the domain of the sky and of the sun, draped in dazzling white cloth while Satan is relegated to the bowels of the underground, dark and chaotic. I would argue that it is the imagery that each of portraits evoke that has led to the light=good, dark=bad mentality that you talk about. Nothing more than aesthetic convenience. Again, I doubt that this sort of mentality is rooted in racist beliefs, as the people who wrote the Bible would have been black, Arabic people themselves. Why would they attempt to push such racist views? |
Light vs. Darkness is one of the primary, root beliefs of Christianity and as so is amongst the oldest, most promulgated beliefs to Christians. It is NOT an "aesthetic convenience" by any means, it is more of a metaphor than anything else. It pertains to the righteousness of the quintessential "infallible papacy." Do you know why he is always wearing white garments of some sort, and Priests wear black? Nothing at all to do with common thought as to the reasons-- it has everything to do with Light vs. Darkness theme. The Pope is the representative of God on earth, and the Priests are the equivalents to SLAVES-- this is fact, and is documented in writings by various popes, be it from Phillippe of France who used to poison Bishops on the regular for his disdain for their existance in his papacy to the latest Vatican-inhabitants of times.
BTW, it's good to finally have some people to discuss this type of thing with who have their brains' ON\OFF switches flicked to the aforementioned. :) |
|
|
| Brownitus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
brownitus, i take no offense at all... as InsomnEac said, your posts are excellent (along with everyone here)
it just frustrates me that you are powerless in at least even showing her glimpse of what else is out there in the world, you know what i mean?
btw why does it always show you have 0 posts? |
Believe me, I feel you on that totally man. Some people are just so incredibly close-minded and mislead that, and especially at such an advanced age, their minds cannot comprehend "the truth" when they are impacted by it so suddenly. The key tool to this brainwashing is the inheretance of it handed down generation after generation.
Haha, I don't know what's up with that 0 posts thing either ;)
[/QUOTE]also i guess out of coincidence there was a article in the campus newspaper (the battalion) about a presentation a prof made about how darwin's theory of evolution is wrong but rather belived in the creation theory... and most of what was written could've easily being disproven by acidfast7, seeing as he said he does his graduate degree in that area (am i wrong?) and see's the random mutation that is built into our code to evolve. [/QUOTE]
People who deny evolution are morons who clearly can't grasp reality. It takes no Darwin biographer to realize that evolution is simple and plain FACT. Everything from the evolution of elephants growing in atypical methods due to poaching to the average age for a woman to begin her menstrual cycle to the average height of a man today being somewhere in the realm of 5'9½ as compared to a little over 6 feet about 150-200 years back. |
|
|
| u4ea:[soulstar] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
brownitus, i take no offense at all... as InsomnEac said, your posts are excellent (along with everyone here)
it just frustrates me that you are powerless in at least even showing her glimpse of what else is out there in the world, you know what i mean?
btw why does it always show you have 0 posts?
also i guess out of coincidence there was a article in the campus newspaper (the battalion) about a presentation a prof made about how darwin's theory of evolution is wrong but rather belived in the creation theory... and most of what was written could've easily being disproven by acidfast7, seeing as he said he does his graduate degree in that area (am i wrong?) and see's the random mutation that is built into our code to evolve. |
Sounds like she's still very young and impressionable. Give her time, and maybe she'll see (uh) the light.
You decide the difference between ignorance and blind happiness. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by u4ea:[soulstar]
You decide the difference between ignorance and blind happiness. |
That was a beautiful quote. best one i've heard in ages. i am mesmorized by it. so true |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by u4ea:[soulstar]:
So you know the discrepancies of Christianity well. Yet, how well do you know (or have explore) other mystical systems to have garnered your dislike? Is it the teachers, the practitioners, the philosophy? Or all of it? |
First of all allow me to retract something I said in my last post: instead of “that makes me dislike most forms of organised religion” I should have written “that makes me disagree with most forms of organised religion”. I’m not here to make value judgements, just to outline why I disagree with certain theological systems.
Now judging from your post above, as well as from an earlier post, you seem to be throwing down a challenge for me to justify why I disagree with different forms of religion to you? First of all I would argue that the burden of proof is not upon me to justify my lack of belief, but upon others to justify whatever beliefs they may have to me. If the burden of proof is upon the non-believer, then we would all spend our entire lives dismissing belief systems of one kind or another, which is obviously quite unfeasible. How am I meant to justify why it is that I don’t believe in any god, other than the fact that no religion has given me enough reason to?
Secondly, am I right in thinking that you are linking my atheism to a closed mind on my behalf? Or lack of knowledge about religion? You must understand that I am not just a person who rejects theism – or any of the other spiritual concepts you mentioned earlier – because skepticism of such concepts, or atheism in general are somehow integral to who I am and I somehow see it fit to reject these concepts so that my “closed belief system” remains intact. I do not reject these things out of ignorance, or out of an inability to understand these concepts, or an inability to properly open my mind to them: I reject these things out of a distinct lack of evidence, or, more broadly, a distinct lack of verifiability.
| quote: | | Evidence. Yes, the classic reason all die-hard atheists use in Atheism vs. Theists debates…………… Definition? It's like an internal (endo-)knowledge system that's closed. Once a person relies on a primary model of investigation, diametrically opposed and uncompromising to other seemingly unrelated thought systems, they quickly reach the threshold of gaining new (exo) values; new (exo) insights; or new (exo) knowledge. |
Now you are suggesting here that my atheism and/or skepticism constitute a model of investigation that is unworkable, as it does not allow the possibility of accessing and learning from other thought systems? Thus there is a limit to what I can learn because my method of thinking immediately closes off the possibility of borrowing from other thought systems?
It is a rather specious argument: you wrongly assume that all belief systems have equal merit. The second you assume this, your mind can easily fall into the trap of believing anything. My method of thinking involves, yes, listening to what each belief system may have to offer, but then scrutinising it, applying the Cartesian axiom of doubt to what it purports to be “truth”. You must doubt things in order to know them: doubt is congenial to true knowledge, not antithetical towards it. How is asking for evidence when being offered a theory – theological or otherwise – somehow an indication of a closed mind? If you reject the need for evidence when undertaking a new belief, or somehow assume that questioning it or doubting it is the wrong method of investigation, then you will never “know” anything.
My atheism is founded on a far more reliable and secure base than are the systems of theology. You apply doubt – true doubt – to any of them and they collapse: though, again, if you can offer evidence to the contrary then I’ll happily retract what I said. Just be aware that atheism and skepticism are not (usually) the whimsical rejection of a set of values, but simply represent a more stringent “model of investigation” that are more congenial to the pursuit of true knowledge.
Before I delve into my reasons for rejecting theology, allow me to quickly cover some of the concepts you mentioned before.
| quote: | | That's a side view without hindsight. I see the possibility and the attainment of both: |
I don’t think you quite understood the point of what I was trying to say.
With all the religions that I am familiar with, you must unwaveringly adopt a way of life in the present (which may involve the sacrifice of such things as your own moral framework or a certain way of acting, or the adoption of new frameworks that in someway conflict with the way of life you would be living otherwise) in order to secure your position in the afterlife. A sacrifice of the present (regardless of how small or trivial that sacrifice may seem) in order gain the future. But I ask how so many people are so certain that an afterlife exists in the first place? How do they know they are praying to the right god? How do they know that there’s a god at all? Regardless of whether happiness within any sort of a theological framework can be achieved in the present is almost unimportant: it still involves the sacrifice of who you are and how you act in the present, to support the unfounded belief that it will grant you a higher status in the afterlife.
| quote: | | One way of happy living is to come face to face with death and coming back (NDE). Another way is how much value a person places on such subjects that pure atheists wouldn't dare venture into: exploration of OBE; Kundalini; Dreams; Astral planes; Remote Viewing; past life regression. The ability to self-empower ourselves and dismantle one's own paradigms enriches and nurtures our lives and our curiosity. That is what living our potential is when we explore the possiblities. |
Now I do not question the fact that NDE’s promote a more optimistic outlook on life: the is the exact reason I suggest that the rejection of an afterlife is beneficial to the way in which one lives their life. Death is what this makes this life meaningful: if you believe in the afterlife then death becomes an illusion. What awaits you in the next life promises to be so much better than what you are afflicted with in this life, this life becomes a burden (obviously belief systems – such as Hinduism – that have the individual reincarnated rather than end up in a “heaven” are somewhat exempt from this logic. Having said that, the same principles of having to behave in a certain way so as to better the deal for your next life still apply). If you reject the concept of an afterlife – ceteras parabus - this life becomes far more precious and meaningful.
Now I’m not familiar with all the other concepts you mention there, but I am familiar with OBE, dreams (as events that have some spiritual purpose) and past life regression, and I’m afraid that you’d have a hard time arguing that any of those have any real merit. If you believe that these concepts are useful things to believe in, in order to attain happiness……well…… I can only wonder why. If you want me to, I’d be happy to go into my reasons why I consider them to be false (remember, they’re making claims that can be tested empirically, it would be irresponsible not to hold them up to this sort of scrutiny) and tell you exactly why atheists wouldn’t go near them (and it has nothing to do with the implication you made that we wouldn’t have the nerve to “dare” examine them objectively).
Okay that’s all I’m going to write for now. I’ve been typing this response for the past couple of hours, and now I have to go to uni. When I come back I’ll give you the justifications that your looking for about why I reject all theology, demonstrating my knowledge of the themes involved where necessary.
So, until then….. :) |
|
|
| DJ Teknique |
i agree with that teknohe@d said about wars having to do with religion
as for me i don't believe in god, never seemed to be interested in religion |
|
|
| KaNoS |
k, i havent read all post, but i did read most of them. Any1 can post some arguments that are actually agaist the existance of God? not against religion, or intolerance in people.Also plz dont give the i cant see it it doesnt exist.
Also, most of you forget, that religion is made by people, people does bad and good things, its like that in everything from goverment, cleaners, to teachers, etc....
And to that satan question, how can he exist, i dont remember who asked,i believe theres no such thing as good and wrong. Those values chance so radically from person that person that person, that seems hard to believe that the definition is written in our hearts, its seems like what your parents tell you is bad and good,u think its bad and good. I believe that in the way you find in a person the so called good and evil in one, you find it in god, its not a good god, its not an evil god, its just god. |
|
|
| Brownitus |
| quote: | Originally posted by KaNoS
k, i havent read all post, but i did read most of them. Any1 can post some arguments that are actually agaist the existance of God? not against religion, or intolerance in people.Also plz dont give the i cant see it it doesnt exist. |
Why not? The likeliness of a big boogy man in the sky deciding if I enter heaven or hell when I die is almost as silly as the belief that a political revolutionary walked on water, fed crowds with crumbs and healed with his hands. (No, my sarcasm isn't meant to be abstract here).
[/QUOTE]Also, most of you forget, that religion is made by people, people does bad and good things, its like that in everything from goverment, cleaners, to teachers, etc....[/QUOTE]
And 90% of these idiots claim it was God who told\instructed them to do whatever "bad" things they did.
[/QUOTE]And to that satan question, how can he exist, i dont remember who asked,i believe theres no such thing as good and wrong. Those values chance so radically from person that person that person, that seems hard to believe that the definition is written in our hearts, its seems like what your parents tell you is bad and good,u think its bad and good. I believe that in the way you find in a person the so called good and evil in one, you find it in god, its not a good god, its not an evil god, its just god. [/QUOTE]
If you don't believe there's such a thing as right and wrong, you must be heavily intoxicated or just very stupid. No offense, but there is right and there is wrong-- molesting infants, shooting someone for their skin colour, going on a hacking spree with your toolshed goodies at an old folks' home, etc. etc. are all basic examples of the latter. Right and wrong certainly exist-- it is the very theory of a God that angers me because of the sheer fact that there are those out there who would commit such atrocities in the name of the great galactic goblin who will never be proved. |
|
|
| u4ea:[soulstar] |
| quote: | | First of all allow me to retract something I said in my last post: instead of ?that makes me dislike most forms of organised religion? I should have written ?that makes me disagree with most forms of organised religion?. I?m not here to make value judgements, just to outline why I disagree with certain theological systems. |
Ahhh, I see. =))
| quote: |
Now judging from your post above, as well as from an earlier post, you seem to be throwing down a challenge for me to justify why I disagree with different forms of religion to you? First of all I would argue that the burden of proof is not upon me to justify my lack of belief, but upon others to justify whatever beliefs they may have to me. If the burden of proof is upon the non-believer, then we would all spend our entire lives dismissing belief systems of one kind or another, which is obviously quite unfeasible. How am I meant to justify why it is that I don?t believe in any god, other than the fact that no religion has given me enough reason to? |
I have chosen my foe! En garde, my good man! ..No challenge will be necessary, just an exchange of thoughts.. I only picked you out of this crowd for obvious reasons you could surmised yourself (you got brain cells).. :D When you say 'virtually', 'dislike' (retracted), 'organized religion', I want to see where you are getting your opinions from, not blanket statements. I have no idea if you are referring to your homeland; North America; Europe; the original homes of such (uh) religions; or all of it. I will say what I find is the difference and the meaning of 'organized' religion. I'll use the Christian and Buddhist schools:
....There is a big difference between what is imported from its origins. The difference is the environment and the support structures for such - either lacking or not fully developed properly. So 'organized religions' [non-Christian based systems] in Modernized-based cultures easily becomes a misnomer for misunderstanding, misconception, and misguideness. The only tradition that would 100% fit that title is world-prominent Christianity. Hence, it carries those connotations in non-asiatic cultures - because of its own discrepancies, problems, corruption - which pervades and lumps other mystical systems in the same category. For instance, the people of western-based civilizations say Buddhism [misnomer, 2nd largest influence to Christianity] is the epitome of all of it's specializations, which worships deities as its primary focus. That is not case. The of hierachy pyramid of learning [for lack of better description] is different:
..Christianity. At the lower levels of the pyramid, the person is already cultured about God and (uh) His salvation. Next levels the person attend sessions; learns the history; the mythics; and it's own (segregated) dotrine. Next ones are the missionary and charity work. Afther those, the person may decide to go into priesthood. From the low levels to the highest, the Christian God is always stressed.
..Zen, Nichiren Daishonin, Jen Chen, Tibetan. At the lower levels, the person is taught the psychophysics and types of meditation and chanting. The higher levels gives the person choices in refining and developing the processes into more depth. The next ones delve into the Pali canon of Siddhartha's sutras and discourses. Beyond these levels are non-meditative practices; energy work, healing work; compassion work; tantras (advance stages). If the person wants to go to higher forms of applied philosophy/theories. These are the levels where mythology and esoteric science comes into focus - exclusive to only certain Buddha schools (master stages, like Tibetan Vajrayana, Tummo).
This is not a great model but it's best I can do to show the comparison of the two major traditions in the world. I am rather careful in not using such misnomers that do not represent the faces of mysticism. But if your disagreements are with Christianity and its theological orders, then that would suit your posture. I believe I have a much clear picture when you said that now..
Burden of proof. Existence of a god? Is that the sign you look for? The burden of proof rests on both willing parties, not just one.
| quote: | | Secondly, am I right in thinking that you are linking my atheism to a closed mind on my behalf? Or lack of knowledge about religion? You must understand that I am not just a person who rejects theism ? or any of the other spiritual concepts you mentioned earlier ? because skepticism of such concepts, or atheism in general are somehow integral to who I am and I somehow see it fit to reject these concepts so that my ?closed belief system? remains intact. I do not reject these things out of ignorance, or out of an inability to understand these concepts, or an inability to properly open my mind to them: I reject these things out of a distinct lack of evidence, or, more broadly, a distinct lack of verifiability. |
No. I merely asked you a question. I am curious to see what else you have experienced or know and what else *exactly* have you dismissed besides just the obvious (Christianity)...Plus, you stick out of this crowd and I like to cause friction with fellow TAs.. hehehe :D
...Spiritual concepts like sublime states and jhanic states??
** When I mean closed system, I mean internal knowledge reaching limits because it is not an open system like dissipative structures [Prigogine's theory]. Is this closed system ignorant? You will decide that, not me. I merely observe how atheism functions at the base of its tenets.
| quote: | | Now you are suggesting here that my atheism and/or skepticism constitute a model of investigation that is unworkable, as it does not allow the possibility of accessing and learning from other thought systems? Thus there is a limit to what I can learn because my method of thinking immediately closes off the possibility of borrowing from other thought systems? |
** It's imply at you -- but more directed at both atheism and theists. If such a person could access and learn, could he/she reverse, re-organize his/her belief structures? Without verifiability or evidence, the tenets stressed with atheists, you're going to have a hard time..
..The 'definition' did not say "not allow", but the possibility is limited - and creates a blindside.
| quote: | | It is a rather specious argument: you wrongly assume that all belief systems have equal merit. The second you assume this, your mind can easily fall into the trap of believing anything. My method of thinking involves, yes, listening to what each belief system may have to offer, but then scrutinising it, applying the Cartesian axiom of doubt to what it purports to be ?truth?. You must doubt things in order to know them: doubt is congenial to true knowledge, not antithetical towards it. How is asking for evidence when being offered a theory ? theological or otherwise ? somehow an indication of a closed mind? If you reject the need for evidence when undertaking a new belief, or somehow assume that questioning it or doubting it is the wrong method of investigation, then you will never ?know? anything. |
I do what? Pfahahah.. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist to me.. :D Anyhow, let's get a few things straight:
..I am merely not as skeptical as you are, but I am a seeker.
..I walk in a path least travelled while an atheist is content to sit and wait.
..I have much higher tolerance with thought systems without empirical proof.
..I necesarily don't rely on some others' axioms, I develop my own 'anntenaes'
..My mechanism of learning is not through doubt, inquisitiveness is.
..I have an genuine fascination and deep love for mysticism
Real experiences that has happened and changed me, which I can't deny. (walk)
It's a process of finding self-trust, the heart, being intuitively inclined, building my own self-realization structure. (anntennaes)
I don't fear that I may be wrong - I have have faith in myself. (doubt)
Asking. Modern-based atheists' systematic thinking equates evidence as compulsory to belief. The root of the problem is deep-seated (subconscious) mistrust for such thought systems, the corresponding individual or parties. The inquiring atheist knows fully well asking for such answers are impossible to give by the party in question. The inquiry is self-serving when:
..Science, as an aggregate, does not care to investigate on such anomalies.
..Science is not equipped to carry such tasks of investigation. It can to some extent, but the tools are limited.
..Science-based careerists will rarely risk their necks to do such studies or research.
..Institutions, responsibly for funding and grants, won't give much a hoot about it.
| quote: | | My atheism is founded on a far more reliable and secure base than are the systems of theology. You apply doubt ? true doubt ? to any of them and they collapse: though, again, if you can offer evidence to the contrary then I?ll happily retract what I said. Just be aware that atheism and skepticism are not (usually) the whimsical rejection of a set of values, but simply represent a more stringent ?model of investigation? that are more congenial to the pursuit of true knowledge. |
Reliable and Secure. I suppose you are referring to academic, modern science? I could follow, but it won't suit me, I'm not the type to follow concurrent modern-based established orders. But I will use such orders to refine my understanding and tweak the inner workings of my knowledge and my experiences.
True Doubt. Is saying: "I need proof, period." And that all depends on who you are asking, not the system. Who have you asked?
Model and True knowledge. How much can an atheist investigate and discover knowledge using a self-serving model, without any or little authentic, personal experiences? I would say it is going to be very difficult.
| quote: | I don?t think you quite understood the point of what I was trying to say.
With all the religions that I am familiar with, you must unwaveringly adopt a way of life in the present (which may involve the sacrifice of such things as your own moral framework or a certain way of acting, or the adoption of new frameworks that in someway conflict with the way of life you would be living otherwise) in order to secure your position in the afterlife. A sacrifice of the present (regardless of how small or trivial that sacrifice may seem) in order gain the future. But I ask how so many people are so certain that an afterlife exists in the first place? How do they know they are praying to the right god? How do they know that there?s a god at all? Regardless of whether happiness within any sort of a theological framework can be achieved in the present is almost unimportant: it still involves the sacrifice of who you are and how you act in the present, to support the unfounded belief that it will grant you a higher status in the afterlife. |
You are referring to Christian God-based works? Our angles are different on the quote, I'm more versed in esoteric orders, you're better at dissimenating theological orders. Am I correct?
| quote: |
Now I do not question the fact that NDE?s promote a more optimistic outlook on life: the is the exact reason I suggest that the rejection of an afterlife is beneficial to the way in which one lives their life. Death is what this makes this life meaningful: if you believe in the afterlife then death becomes an illusion. What awaits you in the next life promises to be so much better than what you are afflicted with in this life, this life becomes a burden (obviously belief systems ? such as Hinduism ? that have the individual reincarnated rather than end up in a ?heaven? are somewhat exempt from this logic. Having said that, the same principles of having to behave in a certain way so as to better the deal for your next life still apply). If you reject the concept of an afterlife ? ceteras parabus - this life becomes far more precious and meaningful. |
Once again, at different angles we come from. I explore; I don't reject; nor renounce these subjects in order to bring positive elements into my life. It's part of making the connection between life, death, and rebirth as a complex, deterministic cycle of Nature. As I said, a person can learn both. Though. there different types and levels in learning; belief is at the bottom of the chain, while self-actualization is at the top of it.
The Symbolism of NDE. The person declared clinically dead but came back to life - alludes to the afterlife or transitory phases of it. A Person lives, dies, and is reborn could be related to alot of aspects of present life. The cyle of birth and death is not a separate reality of each. Death could occur to a person's closed system of endo-knowledge (living) so a [re]birth of new system can emerge.
| quote: | | Now I?m not familiar with all the other concepts you mention there, but I am familiar with OBE, dreams (as events that have some spiritual purpose) and past life regression, and I?m afraid that you?d have a hard time arguing that any of those have any real merit. If you believe that these concepts are useful things to believe in, in order to attain happiness??well?? I can only wonder why. If you want me to, I?d be happy to go into my reasons why I consider them to be false (remember, they?re making claims that can be tested empirically, it would be irresponsible not to hold them up to this sort of scrutiny) and tell you exactly why atheists wouldn?t go near them (and it has nothing to do with the implication you made that we wouldn?t have the nerve to ?dare? examine them objectively). |
I never once mentioned nor expressed such beliefs. What I do have is what I call: Algorithmic [Self]Realization Structure. Simply, it's like coding a computer function with many complex subroutines connected to the main. The program has (erm) glitches needed to be debugged. Once the compilation is complete without error, I've made an authentic discovery, whether it be knowledge, insight, or experience. Then I will architect the next function in the software (ASRS).
I argued about it once, but it got very polarized (PLR). I have no need to.
Believe, Real merit, Concepts, Wonder Why. I place a value on spirituality not beliefs, and my duty to fulfill a purprose beyond my current societal mentality. That is all...
Examine Subjects I Mentioned. You can objectively intellectualize it and tear it apart all you want to your heart's content. Armchair objectified examination is fruitless. But I will applaud an atheist's 'nerves' of steel when he or she actually decides to study it as a student. Or even better, he or she goes back to the thought system's original homeland - or goes to good lengths of finding practicing students/teachers/masters.
** Finally, I'll ask you a question that has everything you cherish about atheistic order:
...If you had one chance, one chance only, to go study with a gifted Tibetan master, would you go? That means you will need to leave your home and follow that master to the outer fringes, away from modern civilizations. He or she will properly teach all the knowledge (cosmology, dharma) and techniques (vajra, tummo, tantric) to you. Meaning, that Tibetan is going to provide you a rare chance of a lifetime to attain Enlightenment. Yes or no?
| quote: | | Okay that?s all I?m going to write for now. I?ve been typing this response for the past couple of hours, and now I have to go to uni. When I come back I?ll give you the justifications that your looking for about why I reject all theology, demonstrating my knowledge of the themes involved where necessary. |
Sure, be my guess.. :D
Boi, this discussion is getting waaaaaaaaaayyy tooo long.
Keep the Peace |
|
|
| u4ea:[soulstar] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Brownitus
Izzy, you are not alone. You are actually just another stat as far as situations like this go, and it's very sad. *Disclaimer* The following might be taken as offensive, and if so, indeed it is meant to be:
Your friend is clearly a moron (no, I do not know her personally nor do I know anything about her other than the fact that she is obviously another victim of Christian mind control) by terms of her nonexistant knowledge base in an area that obviously is the basis for her belief system\regular train of thought\reaction system. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if she was Pat Robertson's biggest fan and a regular donator to the 700 Club. One thing to understand is that, most likely, she has not read the bible in full even a mere once (even if her claim is contrary). She does not have any idea whatsoever as to the "true story"-- if you will-- of whom she knows only as Jesus Christ.
The fact is, Yoshua Ben Yosef was a POLITICAL REVOLUTIONARY. Nevermind the garbage of him walking on o2 or feeding crowds of people with crumbs-- meaningless that is aimed at capturing the superstitious\stupid. Then you have Constantine who has a dream of a cross and such, and the likelihood that Jesus never was crucified but instead fled to Egypt and married, had children and has a bloodline that continues to this day-- but that's a whole other story. Christ is Greek for "one who is annointed," and the term was donned upon his legacy for obvious reasons.
Anyways, back to the point at hand-- this friend of yours is going to forever be a slave to Christian Fundamentalism and the voice of a slightly less stupid fool with a white collar, and only so because he is the one controlling the masses every Sunday. |
HOw times how you used moron, already? One too many! * smacks B with 20lb cold trout :whip:
N |
|
|
| u4ea:[soulstar] |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
That was a beautiful quote. best one i've heard in ages. i am mesmorized by it. so true |
O.O Me-mesmerized?! How so? |
|
|
|
|
